5. Negotiation Style Part 2
同学聚会游戏-管理学考研国家线
Negotiating Styles, Part 2
MAJOR TEAM
STYLES
TEAMS MUST MAKE a conscious effort to
maintaina unified front. This can be
accomplished through avariety of styles, with
specific choices being
based on member talent,
cultural background, and personality type. A
single stylecan be maintained throughout a
single negotiation or turned
on and off when
required. Though the preservation of unity is the
main
concern when making a stylistic choice,
that unity will flow from
member
compatibility. When preparing strategy for
negotiations, choose
the talent first and let
those choices dictate the team’s eventual style.
Also
keep in mind that while unity is
paramount the appearanceof disunity can
be
used to accomplish the team’s goal as well. Much
of the effectiveness
of any style will be the
impression created upon the opposition.
CONSENSUS
Consensus allows the team to
disperse authority and responsibility.
The
group sets policy and makes group is consulted on
issues both large and small. While a
spokesperson may deliver the results
of group
decisions, no clear leadership role is taken, and
the spokesperson
may change, depending on the
subject matter being discussed. The Chief
Negotiator acts solely as a moderator for
internal group discussions and
may remain
hidden at general discussions.
Such group
scrutiny is a very time--consuming style, but it
has the
virtue of being difficult to
penetrate. Every decision made by the team
requires a form voting and may result in an
inordinate number of session
breaks as theteam
polls itself. Counterparts will find it difficult
to pry apart
positions that appear seamless.
Counterparts may also be worn down by
the
slowness of the decision-making process and grant
concessions simply
to keepthings moving.
The strengths of consensus-style negotiating
are also its weaknesses.
No matter how well
armored an object is, slow movement invites
outmaneuvering, and the same is true for
lumbering negotiating teams.
Nimble opponents
can overload the decision--making process and make
consensus building untenable. This is
especially true when the agenda
hasn’t been
rigidly set in advance. New issues can be brought
to the table
until the team requiring
consensus gives in to inherent time constraints.
Sometimes the opposition doesn’t bother
to break the Consensus by
maneuver but simply
calls off negotiations, due to what they see as
time
wasting by their counterparts. To avoid
the problems of the consensus style
and
maximize its strengths, here are a few tips.
Only adopt this style when the team is in a buying
investing mode or
in a strong selling position
where the product, service, or investment
opportunity is too attractive or in demand to
warrant dismissal.
Consensus tends to work
best when team members are culturally
homogeneous and comfortable with subjugation
to the group. It can be
used with less
homogeneous teams but will require extensive
briefing
and practice.
Reticence at the
negotiating table is sion must be saved
for
internal sessions. Counterparts present their
positions with the
Consensus team re1uesting
only clarifications and reserving rebuttals
until later. Any “at table” talk must be
couched in terms of “we” not
“I.”
Socializing with counterparts needs to be kept to
a minimum, as this
presents their greatest
opportunity for a divide-and-conquer maneuver.
The Chief Negotiator or team leader must
remain as invisible as
possible, often
allowing other team members to act as
spokesperson.
Just as the team wishes to
disperse authority and responsibility, so too
should the counterpart’s attention be
diffused. Some teams even use
false or
misleading business titles to distract the
opposition from the
team’s true leadership.
Internal dissention must be dealt with
immediately. Unresolved issues
among team
members will be very evident to skilled
counterparts.
Team members who hold grudges or
can’t separate emotions from
business will
make poor consensus builders.
COWBOYS
The term “cowboys” generally denotes a highly
individualistic
approach to business. Its use
hardly seems compatible with a team effort.
However, cowboys were traditionally self-
sufficient people who could
work on their own
for extended periods while contributing to the
group
goal: herding cattle for transport. In
the case of international negotiations,
the
goal is to “round up” the opposition and keep them
moving in the
direction dictated by the “trail
boss” (a.k.a. the Chief Negotiator). This
may
seem a somewhat mawkish analogy, but it’s quite
apt for certain types
of negotiations.
Often negotiations requiring extensive
investments do not take place
with all members
of both teams seated around a single large table.
Specialist sessions are scheduled, such as
marketing, distribution, technical,
or
manufacturing. Some team members may be taken to
different locations
altogether to view branch
offices or operation facilities. Decisions and
statements made during these extracurricular
sessions may dictate the
success or failure of
the entire negotiating mission. It’s no place for
the
faint of heart. Team members who may
flourish in Consensus would find
this type of
isolation disconcerting. Cowboys revel in it.
Cowboys understand the limits of their
authority and the extent of
their
responsibility. Cowboy teams are composed of
individuals who aren’t
merely specialists but
staff who also exhibit generalist management
talents.
(For example, the head of product
development may be a Cowboy, but an
engineer
is just an engineer.) They’re familiar with the
company’s “big
picture” but can discuss it in
“little picture” terms. Cowboy teams converge
for group strategy and disperse for individual
tactical implementation.
Team members may
utilize any of the individual styles delineated in
Chapter 10 when “in the field” as long as
these are compatible with
company goals.
This is an extremely flexible and adaptive
style that is very attractive
to up- and-
coming negotiators. While it grants a great deal
of freedom of
action to its practitioners, it
also has some stringent provisos and
responsibi1ities. The following tips apply to
both sides of the negotiating
table.
Cowboy teams need strong leadership. Notonly must
the Chief
Negotiator be able to provide a
clear vision of the team’s goals, but he
or
she must also be able to inspire loyalty and
operate effectively
without directly
supervising the team. Communication lines must be
wide open and the abi1ity to delegate on full-
throttle. Micromanagers
can’t tolerate the
Cowboy team style and laissez faire managers will
similarly fail, as they don’t have the
requisite ability to bring cohesion
to a team
that’s constantly converging and dispersing. If
the CN can’t
handle the demands of this style,
the talents of its individual members
will
amount to naught.
Team members must have
excellent communication skills and have no
qualms about reporting in to the CN. At a
minimum, daily contact is
required to assure
group goals are being met and new information
circulated. Although every team member is
working on a separate
section, it’s still a
single puzzle.
The team must be composed of
staff who can “work without a net”
under
adverse conditions. People who need occasional
hand-holding
simply won’t succeed here.
Cowboys turn in reports, not requests for
advice.
The loyalty of individual
members should never be in question. It’s
essential that they recognize the difference
between self-interest and
operating
independently.
The team must be highly
organized and well briefed. Because
individuals must operate alone for extended
periods, they must be
armed to the teeth with
information. Each team member should
prepare
for the upcoming negotiations as if they were
going solo.
Agendas that disperse team
members must be worked out prior to the
start
of negotiations. Day one is no time to find out
that a Consensus
team must suddenly operate as
Cowboys.
NOTE: Contrary to what the name
might imply, some of the best
Cowboys are
women. Many female managers are familiar with
working toward group goals while beingisolated
from the normal
company structure. Also, in
some cultures, the opposition will
underestimate their talent simply because of
their gender -- a
mistake that will work in
your team’s favor.
PLATOON
Platoons
operate in a similar fashion to Cowboy teams but
with small
sub-teams that have independent
team leaders answerable to a single CN.
These
team leaders must fulfill all of the requirements
of Cowboys but also
be able to organize and
supervise a team of their own. Not all Cowboys
make good Platoon leaders, and all Platoon
members are not Cowboys.
Platoon style is
very useful when large numbers of technical
specialists must be brought along for
negotiations. Team leaders maintain
control of
the specialists and run applicable negotiating
sessions or side
trips. This takes pressure
off of the CN and allows him or her to
concentrate on wider goals. Team leaders
control the work of their
subordinates,
focusing on the Platoon’s independent goals. And
while they
act as spokespersons fur their
particular Platoon, they defer to the CN
during general discussions.
NOTE: Platoon
style negotiating is a good proving ground for
future chief negotiators.
DIVIDE AND
CONQUER
The easiest way to control
negotiations is to control the counterparts’
position. Of course, they’ll be doing
everything possible to prevent that
from
happening. Turning members of the opposition
against each other
goes a long way
toward succeeding in this particular
negotiating can effectively utilize a divide-
and-conquer style, either as the
overall
strategy or as a simple tactic for specific agenda
points. Though it
will be discussed here from
a practitioner viewpoint, all negotiators must
be on the look-out for signs that it’s being
used against them.
This style works by one of
two methods and requires significant skills
of
observation. Method one calls for the isolation of
one or more members
of the other ream for the
purpose of soliciting information-- either actual
data related to the negotiations or
intelligence regarding dissention in a
counterpart’s ranks. Some practitioners even
take this to the extreme of
offering
remuneration for such information. Intelligence
acquired by more
subtle means (that is,
subterfuge) is often more useful, though it does
require a more substantial investment of time.
Once acquired, the information may he used to
slyly undermine a
proposal or it may be boldly
stated at a session and attributed directly to
the wayward counterpart (“Your Mr. Chan said
last night at dinner that
your shipments have
a four week lead time not three as you state here.
Which is it?”) This latter method does two
things: it lets the opposition
know that
you’re wise to their game but it also pinpoints
the leak.
Targeting a key member of the
opposing team greatly increases the impact
of
this style, as junior staff members committing
such an offense will
simply be sent packing.
Neutralizing a second-in-command will create
general havoc in the opposition. This is a
very serious move and should be
taken
cautiously.
Of course, not attributing the
inside information directly (“It has come
to
our attention that ...”) alsohas benefits. It
creates severe mistrust among
the opposition
and forces their Chief Negotiator to act alone,
since no one
on the team can now be trusted. A
team effort has just very effectively
been
turned into a solo act.
These divisive
contacts are generally made under the guise of
socialization. Much can be learned during a
golf game, cocktail reception,
or late team
members are particularly susceptible, since
they may not discover they’ve been compromised
until they return for
team sessions. It’s also
during these dispersed sessions that Cowboys can
be approached with the proposal of switching
sides altogether
(unscrupulous perhaps, but
not uncommon).
Keep in mind that experienced
teams of all styles will be expecting
some
form of divisive move by counterparts. It’s a
technique older than
Caesar. In some cases,
practitioners are often set up for a fall with
information that’s more harmful than useful.
LESSON: If you head down a road you
weren’t supposed to be on,
you’re hardly
justified in complaining about the directions.
Know
the opposition and “watch your back.”
The other method of this divisive style is the
constant exploitation of
weak points and
contradictions in a counterpart’s statements. Some
teams
assign a member of their delegation the
duty of taking notes and
transcribing them for
use in postsession recaps. Laptop computers are
regularly put to use for this purpose, as
word-for-word transcriptions allow
for easy
searches and comparisons. By using a counterpart’s
own words to
undermine their position (“But at
this morning’s contract session your Ms.
Hernandez stated that, and I quote ...”), the
burden remains squarely on
their shoulders. No
subterfuge is involved, only attention to detail.
Convincing the other side that they are
disorganized will greatly reduce
their
resistance to granting concessions.
WARNING:
Only the most experienced, cohesive teams can
avoid some form of contradiction or mistake in
their proposals.
Once the Divide and Conquer
style is detected, expect to become
the target
of revenge.
JEKYLL AND HYDE
This style is
also known as “good cop, bad Cop.”Part of the team
takes a very hard-line approach to the
negotiations while another
contingent proposes
to act on behalf of the opposition. Stern stylists
work
hand in hand with indulgers to first
browbeat the counterparts and then
promise to
make everything all may seem quite a transparent
ploy to the reader when put in these terms,
but it can be, and is, a
compelling style in
the right situations.
Inexperienced teams are
very susceptible to victimization by this style
and even more so when they’re not operating on
their own turf. Being
confronted with an
argumentative counterpart who is a skilled
practitioner
of Stern or Intimidation tactics
can be very disconcerting. Just when the
victim believes that negotiations will end in
failure, the Indulgers intercede
with offers
of a whole new (and decidedly more pleasant)
proposal. The
discrepancy between the
attitudes and positions of the opposition is
written
off by the victim as the idiosyncratic
behavior of a culture they don’t fully
understand. Most of the time, they even thank
the indulgers for their
assistance in
salvaging the negotiations. Ignorance is indeed
bliss, and the
painful truth usually doesn’t
become apparent for some time. It’s an
expensive education and one that most
negotiators come by the hard way.
The
other situation in which this style is effective
is when third parties
are included in
negotiations. Often this will take the form of a
governmental agency that has been invited by
the host company as an
“observer.”As talks
progress and the visitor’s position becomes
apparent,
this supposedly neutral observer
begins to place roadblocks in the way of
the
deal. Laws and regulations are cited and
governmental review prior to
contract signing
is suggested. The visitor (soon to be victim)
confronts the
host and demands to know why
such problems were not known ahead of
time.
The host now offers to use his “connections”
and back-channel lines
of communication to
help remedy the situation. After days of delay,
the
government has -- miraculously relented on
some, but not all, of the
alleged problems.
The remaining problems, all of which work to the
detriment of the visitor, are no longer
subject to negotiation. They’re now
beyond the
control of the host, who shrugs in feigned
resignation. None of
this takes place until
after the visitors have revealed the full extent
of their
proposal, but the process was planned
long before their arrival.
This type of
bargaining usually takes place in countries where
it’s
next to impossible to find the laws
actually written when you
do find it codified
and contradictory to the recent ruling, the
government
observer will simply say it has
since been updated. In other words, the laws
work only for the host country’s companies,
not yours. Complaining is
pointless. Either
sign the somewhat less attractive contract or go
home.
HIERARCHICAL
Many teams choose to
pass all decisions through the
chain-of-
command for approval. This can occur when a strong
CN has a
weak team and prefers to agree to all
decisions, large and small, as a means
of
maintaining control of the company position. It’s
also quite common
when everyone on the team is
inexperienced and the CN’s choice of style
reflects the normal company hierarchy.
While this is safe, it’s not necessarily cost
effective. Having all
decisions stem from a
single source can make for consistency, but it
defeats the purpose of fielding a team for
negotiations. Whether host or
visitor, it’s
still expensive to bring a team to the table and
it’s best to make
use of them. The one
advantage that hierarchical teams have is that
they
can act as a training ground for novices.
However, it should he noted that
hierarchies
tend to preserve themselves and continue in their
style even
when team members have been
sufficiently “bloodied” by experience.
The hope that subordinates will act as
filters during negotiations
quickly evaporates
as observant counterparts detect that decision
making is
centralized. They no longer wish to
talk to anyone but the decision maker
and will
not bother with sessions in which the central
authority isn’t
present. Unlike Consensus
(which efficiently disperses authority),
hierarchies focus the power, and consequently
all the responsibility, on one
person. Ego-
soothing perhaps, but just as in the case of the
Divide and
Conquer scenario, a solo act ends
up facing a team effort. Unless the Chief
Negotiator is very good and the opposition
very weak, defeat in some form
is inevitable.
WARNING: Hierarchies share the Consensus
style’s sluggish
vulnerability. If such a team
must be put into the field, itshould be
kept
compact. Under no circumstances should a
hierarchical team
be dispersed.
HOR
IZONTAL
Horizontal teams disperse authority
and responsibility much in the
same way as
Consensus teams, but without the benefit of the
CN’s
oversight. Each small team, set up along
the lines of the Platoon style,
negotiates its
own single feature or features of the contract as
a separate
entity. This style is used
primarily by very large international corporations
that plan to farm out parts of a contract to
various subsidiaries.
Its effectiveness lies
in the ability of each small unit to cut the best
deal possible for its own purposes without
having to consider the fallout
for other parts
of the company. Coming face-to-face with this
style can be
perplexing; in some ways, it’s
meant to be. Counterparts suddenly find
themselves negotiating with several individual
companies when they had
only planned on
dealing with one entity.
Large Companies
often save this approach for the second or third
round of talks, when the details of a general
deal are being hammered out.
When planned and
executed properly. Its outcome is very much a
success
for the practitioners, but itrelics on
understanding (if not accommodating)
their
cohorts’ positions. This style forces the
opposition to disperse
negotiating authority
without preplanning. (“Sorry, you’ll need to
discuss
that with or accounting division, we
only handle transnational shipping.”)
Large
companies can more readily succeed with this
“dispersal” when
dealing with smaller firms,
because it gives the impression that this is how
things operate in the “big leagues.” The small
company, even when in a
buying position, is
too embarrassed by its size to demand that all
details be
negotiated at the same table.
LESSON: Pride cometh before a fall.
Unfortunately, some companies (both large and
small) choose this
style unconsciously--
through disorganization and poor leadership.
Domestic and international companies alike
have been plagued for decades
by sales
departments that make promises and sign deals that
their
operations department is unable to
fulfill. Cutting a deal that can’t reach
fruition isn’t successful negotiating; it’s
short-term thinking in a long-term
marketplace.
The horizontal style demands
strong leadership for the individual
subsidiary discussions and a firm grasp of the
interplay among those
affiliates. Creating
intramural problems or causing dissention at
headquarters will have an adverse effect on
overall effectiveness.
REMEMBER: The key to
this style is to make counterparts
believe
they’re dealing with separate entities. The
reality of the
situation is just the opposite.
DEPARTMENTAL
This style is a more self-
conscious version of the Hierarchical method
but with the dispersal result of Horizontal
negotiating. The Departmental is
a very common
form of corporate negotiating in Asia, and growth
in that
region is testament to its
effectiveness.
Visitors or hosts are faced
with an opposing team that has maintained
its
basic company structure, subdivisions, and central
authority.
However,rather than negotiating as
a single unit, counterparts send only
those
staff members to each day’s sessions whose job
description directly
relates to the items on
the agenda. These specialty-based “departments”
can only negotiate within narrow ranges, but
they force their counterparts
to reveal the
entirety of their proposal for later dissection by
another
department. Team leaders (and perhaps
individual and departmental styles)
change on
a daily basis, and the CN has the option of
overseeing the
negotiations from a remote
location. The opposition must negotiate with
several parts of the same company without ever
getting to confront the real
decision maker.
Also, they’re forced to adapt to new personnel
repeatedly,
which prevents them from
establishing a pattern to their
counterparts’strategy. Not only does this
style wear down the opposition,
but it also
continually drives them off course.
The
Department style presupposes a tight control of
agenda items and
clear lines of communication
among the various departments and the CN.
Some
departmental stylists, usually visiting sellers,
simply direct their
members to make
separate, very straightforward presentations and
allow
the facts to speak for themselves. This
idea of “laying all of your cards on
the
table” (at least the ones you want the other side
to see) can be a very
effective way of getting
key issues decided early. It requires a team
composed mostly of Pragmatists.
WARNING:
Counterparts being subjected to a Departmental
style
should recognize that early negotiating
sessions can become
primarily fact-finding
missions for latter discussions. Lower-level
departmental negotiators are given a “shopping
list” of details
needed for the planning of
more important aspects of the deal.
The
Importance of Stylistic Diversity
Negotiating
situations and counterpart styles vary greatly,
even within
the same country. Teams and
individual negotiators must be able to draw
upon as many styles as possible if continued
success is to be had in an ever
expanding
international adept at only one style will
limit the team or solo act to a very small
number of situations, and
attempting to use
the same style under all conditions will result in
a very
small success ratio.
Another
reason to become proficient with as many styles or
combinations of styles as possible is that
itallows negotiators to recognize
the more
subtle hallmarks displayed by counterparts.
Adeptness may come
through usage or
observation. A negotiator or team may object to a
particular style for moral reasons, but they
must become familiar with its
particulars
nonetheless. Having a firm understanding of a
counterpart’s
style and where it leads will
allow for effective preplanning as well as
adjustment once discussions begin.
NOTE:
Negotiations are like chess. Visualizing all
possible moves
in advance leads to success.
Planning Contingencies
Nothing ever goes
completely according to the original design and
waiting for problems to arise before
considering solutions makes for poor
decision
-thought-out contingency planning is the surest
sign
that a negotiator or team has matured.
Such planning must be viewed as a
form of
intellectual insurance -- not mandatory but wise.
The following
nine areas should be considered
as potential troublespots during
negotiations.
FINANCIAL Very often, discussions
uncover financial problems that
weren’t
evident during the planning phase. Information may
have been
purposely withheld or not. Such
revelations, if severe enough, can
bring
negotiations to a halt, but more often they call
for some fancy
footwork on behalf of all
participants. Never enter a negotiation with
all of your financial options “tapped out.”
They Should he open, wide
open. If either side
is on a do-or-die contract signing mission,
there’ll
be more dying than doing. Finances,
and the participants’ attitudes
toward them,
must be elastic.
LEGAL As previously noted,
many nations and localities have a legal
structure that is flexible or inflexible, in
direct proportion to the size
and scope of the
deal being considered. The legal ground in
developing economies can shift suddenly,
dramatically, and without
advance notice. More
intractable styles may need quick adjustment to
make the deal seem significantly more
attractive to counterparts and
government
officials. Visitors should never make the mistake
of
throwing their mostly inconsiderable legal
weight around.
NOTE: Never convince yourself
that you have a complete grasp
of a foreign
legal system until you’re in-country.
POLITICALPolitical moves from right to left,
globalist to
isolationist,or secular to
fundamentalist can happen in the midst of
negotiations. Some discussions may be put on
hold until the political
dust settles, as
occurred during Russia’s 1997 elections. At other
times,
long-standing contracts must be
renegotiated, as happened to Enron in
India in
1996 when nationalist politicians won control over
an area
undergoing a multimillion-dollar
infrastructure project. Politics are
very
fickle and always “local.” If the project is of
any size, plan on
some sort of political
interference,which may range in size from the
U.S. Department of the Treasury, to the
People’s Committee of Da
Nang, to the mayor of
Jima.
MORAL In recent years, vast numbers
of projects have been derailed,
severely
altered, or had their contracts retracted due to
the moral
influence of outside groups.
Boycotts are threatened by “concerned
citizens” claiming moral authority over the
project itself or its
participants.
Negotiations in Myanmar, South Africa all feel the
sting
of these interlopers, who rend to argue
from a very limited perspective.
Companies
with great deal of brand equity (i.e., Coke,
Heineken,
ShellOil) must be especially
attentive.
Even when no external forces are
at play, participants may
uncover information
about the project or counterparts that is of
questionable moral value. This is always a
possibility where the
cultural
backgrounds of the participants are vastly
different.
Negotiators must use their own
moral compass here and determine in
advance
what can and can’t be tolerated. Similarly, teams
must have a
moral point-of-no-return worked
nut in advance. Pre-negotiation
cultural
research will assist in setting these limits.
WARNING: Don’t wait until a bribe is offered
(or demanded) to
determine whether or not the
proposition will be accepted. All
business
cultures have their own set of morals: know yours,
know
theirs.
STRATEGIC Conditions of
all types surrounding negotiations can
change
at a moment’s notice. Backup strategies must be
ready for
deployment on a timely basis.
Original strategies may have failed,
been
outmaneuvered, or overtaken by outside events.
Never, under any
circumstances, should the
phrase “what do we (I) do now?”be uttered
by
professional negotiators. Nimbleness isnot an
option here; a
minimum of two backup plans
should he waiting in the wings. Don’t
confuse
these contingency plans with “last-ditch” efforts.
Secondary
strategies must be considered with
an eye toward success, not toward
limiting
failure.
TACTICAL A failed tactic does not
call for a complete revamping of
the overall
strategy. When attempting to win a specific point
on the
agenda, it’s best to have many
approaches planned, all based on
theconceivable reactions of counterparts.
Furthermore, each point of
the agenda may have
different tactical requirements. Some contract
details may be bullied through, while others
will be won by guile and a
third set achieved
with finesse. Skilled negotiators must be able to
glide from one tactic to the next without
detracting from the main
strategy. It’s not
easy, but contingency planning makes it look easy.
In
fact, if done properly, it can’t be
detected at all.
NOTE: The more tricks (and
sometimes they’re just that
negotiators have
up their sleeves the better. Commercial leger de
main requires much planning and practice.
HEALTH When key members of a team are
suddenly taken ill, it’s no
time to start the
search for replacements. This contingency should
be
planned in detail, especially for the
visiting ream, which will have far
fewer
sources from which to draw in an emergency. No
single team
member, even the Chief Negotiator,
can be permitted the luxury of
being
inexpendable. Everyone must have some form of
“understudy”and the hoarding of information
must be verboten.
Besides creating a form of
insurance against health problems, it’s a
great way to train novice negotiators for
future roles in the spotlight.
NOTE:
Solo negotiators must go to extreme measures to
maintain
their health No one has ever
regretted being “too careful” with
their
health during overseas travel.
CLIMATIC
Climate can have very telling effects on
negotiations. It
can disrupt flight schedules,
evacuate cities,cause power outages, snap
communications, and ruin health. Weather
conditions can even have
adeleterious
effectson the operation of high-tech equipment
needed for
presentations or financial
planning. And such difficulties can increase
as negotiations move farther from urban areas
to regions where backup
systems are in shorter
supply. The weather may not be controllable but
it is predictable and to a much greater degree
every year. Even the
most seasoned team (pun
intended) must plan for adverse weather
conditions -- and not just from a clothing or
medication standpoint.
Presentations must be
able to be delivered effectivelywith or without
technical gadgets, and backup communications
should be readily
available.
NOTE:
Visiting teams must recognize that arriving in-
country
unprepared for the climate will mark
their efforts as being
under-researched.
PERSONAL Negotiators lead lives apart from
business and often
those personal inter enc
with pressing needs. Problems that demand a
negotiator’s immediate attention will arise at
some of the most
inconvenient moments during
discussions. As in the case with health
contingencies, the understudy system must he
used by teams when
members are called away.
Solo negotiators planning overseas travel
must
make sure that all of their personal matters are
in order before
embarking on important
missions.
WARNING: Spouses, parents, children,
and significant others
must be thoroughly
conditioned to recognize a true emergency.
LEARNING TO AVOID OVERKILL
It’s always
best to have detailed planning, copious
information,
skilled professionals, and
conducive conditions when readying for
negotiations. Fortune favors the prepared
mind. However, preparation
doesn’t demand
usage and negotiators are to be warned about
overkill. On
many occasions, counterparts can
turn out to be far more pliable than
originally thought. What it takes to overwhelm
their defenses and counter
their maneuvers may
be but a small portion of the strategic and
tactical
array that was meticulously prepared.
Don’t succumb to the urge to“go
over the top”
with the remaining, unnecessary portions of your
plan.
Beating an opponent at soccer by
a score of two to one assures them
some
dignity, without detracting from the victor’s
revelry. Running up the
score to ten to one by
taking advantage of a mismatch leaves the defeated
with less than nothing. Moving the analogy to
negotiations, the concept of
leaving the
opposition“enough”makes for a grudgeless long-term
relationship and, in the case of simple
trades, opportunities for future
business.
Trouncing counterparts, even when their behavior
has been less
than cordial, will not bode well
in the long run. Highly organized and
prepared
negotiators must know when to turn off their
bargaining
juggernaut and move on to the next
set of negotiations.
LESSON: Don’t let your
own style win out over the substance of
your
position. Overkill wastes time, energy, and
opportunity.
Detecting Changes in Your
Counterpart’s Modus Operandi
Counterparts are
under no obligation to be consistent with their
style
throughout an entire set of discussions.
Their changes may be proactive in
an attempt
to confound the opposition, or the change may be
reactions to
strategic and tactical failures.
Here are some indicators that a counterpart is
preparing to make a stylistic change in their
negotiation approach.
Requests for
additional breaks or longer breaks
Requests
for postponements
The addition of new high-
level participants, especially if they’re
visitors who have been flown in “to beef up”
the opposition
The outright replacement of
high-level participants for “personal”
reasons
The reduction of support staff (counterparts
may be preparing to
cancel the talks)
Increased requests for technical data presumed to
be “common
knowledge”
Requests for a
location change
Increases in the number of
or length of social contacts
Requests for
side meetings or specialist sessions
Prolonged use of a third language unfamiliar to
translators
Increased requests for
clarifications of standard topics
Increased
interruptions that rc9uire “immediate attention”
Distinguishing “Yes” from “I Understand”
The goal of the negotiating process is
to achieve agreement among
parties with
opposing viewpoints. Reaching an understanding
isn’t the
same as reaching an agreement.
Sometimes the problem is linguistic, but
most
often it’s stylistic. The smiling affability of
the Social stylist doesn’t
always indicate
agreement, any more than the grimaced detachment
of the
Impassive practitioner denotes discord.
Negotiators around the world are often shocked
to find themselves in
discussions that proceed
rapidly, and cordially, to nowhere. Others have
waged hard-pitched and uphill battles that
smelled of defeat only to find on
the last day
that they’ve won every concession they needed.
Many
professionals alleviate the suspense of
waiting for the final contract signing
(or
not) by introducing an incremental or provisional
signed agreement
after each major point of the
agenda is resolved. While this commits
neither
side to the ultimate bond of a bargain, it does
give a good
indication of the true direction
of the negotiations.
No matter how
experienced, negotiators can suffer from the basic
human frailty of misinterpretation of the
facts. The word or words to the
effect of
“yes” in many languages can mean “I understand,”“I
agree,”“I
have no idea what you are talking
about but am too embarrassed to ask for
an
explanation,”“I hear you but have no intention of
doing what you have
requested,” or “I’m paving
absolutely no attention to what you’re saving.
Do go on.”
LESSON: Understanding is a
mental process. Agreement is a
contract
signing process. Get it in writing.